[elmer fudd]

I wonder what these people that call the constitution a "living document" would say if their bank decided that their mortgage was a "living document".

[antiRepublicrat]

OTOH, I wonder how well Scalia practices what he preaches. He supported the existing extreme expansion of federal powers into places where the federal was not given those powers by the Constitution. He helped bend to the breaking point the definition of "commerce" so the feds could legislate private personal matters in Golzales v. Raich.

O'Connor was actually more constructionist than Scalia in that case, although Thomas (in dissenting like O'Connor) said it best:

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

[pointoflight]

In a diverse society, where its diversity is emphasized over its foundational roots, it is inevitable that there arise conflicts about whose moral code is to be adhered to.

Nevertheless, a society without a moral compass will eventually lose its heading.

Nations set themselves adrift when they have no steadfast point of reference.

A people who decide what is right or wrong solely on relative positions are like the nearsighted navigator who always finds them self on course by focusing on the twinkle just over the horizon.

They never realize that the twinkle is the captain’s lamp at the other end of the ship, steering them only to the course they’ve already predetermined.

[EricT.]

As usual, Scalia is right.

[Navy Patriot]

Greenberg's got it wrong, easy for an idiot. The opposite of a "living" Constitution is a respected one.

[ZULU]

Critcally ill would be a better diagnosis.

Suffering from severe Democrat liberal attack, public apathy and Republican ineptness.